Should muslims be treated equally?

[Dain II Ironfoot]

If you're gonna treat them as second hand people then please, don't be suprised if terror attacks increase.
The whole reason why these extremists are alive is becouse they recruit "weak/weaker" people. People that lost families during war or people that feel rejected by the society. Treating Muslims as second hand people will only play into the hands of the terrorists.
So, yes, they should be treated equally.

[Conserative Morality]

Look, just because some Christians call for the forced conversion or execution of all Muslims doesn't make all Christians terrorists!

It makes all Muslims terrorists.

All Muslims are terrorists?



Funny, I don't remember waking up this morning to have 5 or 6 cars blow up on my street! Anyone else have to wake up to that?

No?

I didn't think so.

Sarcasm, friend, it's sarcasm.

[Dalcaria]

No, Islam just has ones that are more willing to take action. I believe the total numbers of ISIS probably only come to about 40 000 people, give or take. If you added all Muslim extremists up, you'd probably have a pretty similar number to the number of Christian or Sikh extremists (not sure if Hindu is covered under Sikhism or not, or if Sikhism or Hinduism really have many extremists to them).

When the shitheads aren't committing acts of terror I go ahead and skip the label.

Well the only thing keeping the "good folks" of Westboro Baptist Church from being terrorists is that I think they'd prefer a smooth transition to something like death camps for people they don't like, as opposed to random bombings. And, I'm just going to go on a limb and call actions like that "terrorism" as it's the same thing in essence. It really disgusts me that these people get to call themselves "Christian" and I have to be compared to that. Mind you, I'm sure someone like Malala feels the same about ISIS and the Taliban.

[Dalcaria]

All Muslims are terrorists?



Funny, I don't remember waking up this morning to have 5 or 6 cars blow up on my street! Anyone else have to wake up to that?

No?

I didn't think so.

Sarcasm, friend, it's sarcasm.

Sorry, sorry. Just had to jump on that. Too many people like to say that way too often. Honestly, if even half of all Muslims were terrorists, we'd probably be in the middle of a world war. Not even all Muslims need to be terrorists for it to be a massive issue, just half, maybe even less. And since the world isn't like that, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they aren't all. But I suppose that's me trying to reason with unreasonable people, so they'll find a way to ignore the logic.

[Rhodevus]

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-al ... e-muslims/

A nice little read i think you will enjoy.

I have not read this yet but I'm assuming it's that ASININE study that only a small percentage of terrorists in the United States are Muslim which COMPLETELY neglects the fact that the MAJORITY of global terror is Islamic. Will edit when I've read.

edit: Well what do you fucking know.

I looked up global terrorism and see now that you are correct. But, you need to take into account how the religions began (in a historical sense. Not religious.)

Christianity began literally in the heart of the west. Christianity grew around western values in a greatly declining roman empire. Rome was a failing world power. Christianity also began with persecution...

Now think of Islam. It grew in the form of an empire stemming from the religion. It was powerful and widespread amd muslims were in power. We are now in the only time in history where Islam is not the ruling class (in most countries). It is going to take time for them to become as docile as christianity is now as well as Judaism.

Think:
Jews taking over Israel before the two temples
Christian crusades
Now, muslim terrorism.

This does not mean that Islam is a bad religion. It means that there are people who have yet to modernize. Every religion has people like this.

[Des-Bal]

Well the only thing keeping the "good folks" of Westboro Baptist Church from being terrorists is that I think they'd prefer a smooth transition to something like death camps for people they don't like, as opposed to random bombings. And, I'm just going to go on a limb and call actions like that "terrorism" as it's the same thing in essence. It really disgusts me that these people get to call themselves "Christian" and I have to be compared to that. Mind you, I'm sure someone like Malala feels the same about ISIS and the Taliban.

So you're calling them terrorists for protesting, writing songs, and generally conducting themselves entirely in line with the law. And you're comparing that unironically to bombing, acid attacks, and beheading?

[Uxupox]

Why shouldn't they be treated equally? I don't understand.

[Des-Bal]

I looked up global terrorism and see now that you are correct. But, you need to take into account how the religions began (in a historical sense. Not religious.)

No you don't.
"Islam has substantially more shitheads for a series of reasons which don't really affect the point."

The point of that last bit was to circumvent the inevitable explanations and unnecessary defense of Islam as a religion of peace. There are geopolitical and socioeconomic reasons for that and none of them change anything.

[Risottia]

You're fucking disgusting.

I feel that deep down inside, you know that what I've said is true.

Islam as a political force absolutely has to be destroyed- if Islam is ever to become just a religion like Christianity or Judaism has, rather than a political ideology that has global aspirations.

Wait wait wait.

Christianity doesn't have its bits about being a political ideology with global aspirations? Since when?

[The Forsworn Knights]

Is this really horrible satire? Not only did you use The Onion to help your shitty excuse for an argument, but you're advocating for something terrible. Burleson, you cannot in any way, call yourself a supporter of freedom of religion. You've done it before, and it's highly hypocritical. You also cannot call yourself a supporter of freedom in any sense.

I support freedom to be Christian. I never claimed to like the idea of having freedom to be a non-Christian.

We athiests tend to know how to use guns if you try to enforce such a law you know, also, supreme court.

[Big Jim P]

Why shouldn't they be treated equally? I don't understand.

They aren't Christians essentially.

[Myrensis]

PITTSBURGH—Explaining how defending the population is the government’s ultimate responsibility, area man Greg Farnsworth told reporters Thursday he is willing to give up any of Muslims’ rights necessary to feel safe. “The bottom line is that we are putting innocent lives at risk if we don’t give the government more power to protect us, and if that means giving up a few constitutionally protected freedoms of Muslims in the process, so be it,” said Farnsworth, who added that, while he didn't necessarily like the idea of the NSA monitoring phone calls or emails, he believed it was vital to accept a few violations of privacy rights among those of the Islamic faith to ensure the nation remained secure. “If last week’s attacks taught us anything, it’s that al-Qaeda is still determined to kill as many people as they can. So if we have to add more security measures at airports for Muslims or track people online who are critical of the U.S. government, provided they are Muslim, in order to keep us safe, I'm willing to make that sacrifice.” Farnsworth added that, if you really considered the lives and well-being of your family, limiting a few rights for Muslims here and there isn't a bad trade-off at all.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-m ... hts,37780/

Even though the article is from the Onion, and obviously just satire, there's still a good amount of truth in it. All the recent terrorist attacks could have been prevented if muslims didn't have the same freedoms as other people. This may not be politically correct, but security should come long before political correctness. For example, measures to prevent muslims from owning firearms could have potentially prevented the Charlie Hebdo attack, and investigating muslims further before boarding flights (or just not allowing them on in the first place), could have prevented 9/11. Non-muslims are being needlessly subjected to excessive security measures because of the actions of muslims, which I find ridiculous. Of course, basic security measures should be taken for everyone, but let's face it, muslims are more likely to commit terrorist attacks.

So NSG, your opinion?

I am orders of magnitude more likely to be assaulted or killed by a white christian man in this country than by a muslim terrorist.

So the real question is, should white christian men be treated equally?

[NoblePhnx]

-snip

Dude I totally agree!

[Indira]

Sources would be nice OP, because I'm pretty sure muslims are not the only group who commit terrorist attacks.

Not to mention that your it's just as easy to shift such limitations to ANY group you feel are 'disuptive', whether they're muslims or LGBT or anything in between

[Des-Bal]

Sources would be nice OP, because I'm pretty sure muslims are not the only group who commit terrorist attacks.

Not to mention that your it's just as easy to shift such limitations to ANY group you feel are 'disuptive', whether they're muslims or LGBT or anything in between

Right they're just the group that commits the most terrorist attacks.

[Conserative Morality]

No you don't.
"Islam has substantially more shitheads for a series of reasons which don't really affect the point."

The point of that last bit was to circumvent the inevitable explanations and unnecessary defense of Islam as a religion of peace. There are geopolitical and socioeconomic reasons for that and none of them change anything.

"Africans have substantially more shitheads for a series of reasons which don't really affect the point." I suppose I really shouldn't try to defend people claiming that Africans aren't inherently savage, eh?

If the religion isn't the reason, then don't make it the fucking focus.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Why shouldn't they be treated equally? I don't understand.

Because the actions of a few within a certain group we should automatically treat that entire group with more suspicion.

Like when the Christian Terrorist Wade Michael Page attacked a Sikh temple in 2012 we should have automatically started treating all christians with more suspicion.

And when Baruch Goldstein carried out the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre we should have automatically started treating all Jews with more suspicion.

Because that makes perfect sense.

[The Forsworn Knights]

If you're gonna treat them as second hand people then please, don't be suprised if terror attacks increase.
The whole reason why these extremists are alive is becouse they recruit "weak/weaker" people. People that lost families during war or people that feel rejected by the society. Treating Muslims as second hand people will only play into the hands of the terrorists.
So, yes, they should be treated equally.

And not cause civil rights and stuff?
(This post was a joke, do not car bomb me)
(That was also a joke, hail hydra)
(That was also a joke, I like kittens)
(That was an outright lie, like puppies)

[Des-Bal]

"Africans have substantially more shitheads for a series of reasons which don't really affect the point." I suppose I really shouldn't try to defend people claiming that Africans aren't inherently savage, eh?

If the religion isn't the reason, then don't make it the fucking focus.

The fact that other people are wrong does not in turn give you license to be wrong. People make a real concerted effort to ignore basic realities in a pointless effort to defend Islam.

[Risottia]

I support freedom to be Christian. I never claimed to like the idea of having freedom to be a non-Christian.

Then don't expect non-Burlesons to like the idea of a freely-ranting Burleson too much.

[Reddogkeno101]

I support freedom to be Christian. I never claimed to like the idea of having freedom to be a non-Christian.

Then don't expect non-Burlesons to like the idea of a freely-ranting Burleson too much.

Burleson removal squad plz. The prejudice is too much.

[Conserative Morality]

"Africans have substantially more shitheads for a series of reasons which don't really affect the point." I suppose I really shouldn't try to defend people claiming that Africans aren't inherently savage, eh?

If the religion isn't the reason, then don't make it the fucking focus.

The fact that other people are wrong does not in turn give you license to be wrong. People make a real concerted effort to ignore basic realities in a pointless effort to defend Islam.

You're dodging the point. If Islam isn't the primary reason for these attacks (As Muslims in the developed world clearly demonstrate) then don't treat it as the fucking problem.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Sources would be nice OP, because I'm pretty sure muslims are not the only group who commit terrorist attacks.

Not to mention that your it's just as easy to shift such limitations to ANY group you feel are 'disuptive', whether they're muslims or LGBT or anything in between

Right they're just the group that commits the most terrorist attacks.

That's still not reason enough to treat all Muslims inferiorly or with more suspicion. By the logic implied by Burleson, Malala Yousafzai, any other Muslim calling for peace like Reza Aslan, and moderate Muslims in general should not be afforded the same rights as other people due simply to them being Muslim.

[Des-Bal]

You're dodging the point. If Islam isn't the primary reason for these attacks (As Muslims in the developed world clearly demonstrate) then don't treat it as the fucking problem.

I'm not dodging the point I never made the point. My issues with Islam have to do with it's impact on democratic state development in the Third World in terms of this discussion I'm taking objection with the dishonest rhetoric.

[Dalcaria]

Well the only thing keeping the "good folks" of Westboro Baptist Church from being terrorists is that I think they'd prefer a smooth transition to something like death camps for people they don't like, as opposed to random bombings. And, I'm just going to go on a limb and call actions like that "terrorism" as it's the same thing in essence. It really disgusts me that these people get to call themselves "Christian" and I have to be compared to that. Mind you, I'm sure someone like Malala feels the same about ISIS and the Taliban.

So you're calling them terrorists for protesting, writing songs, and generally conducting themselves entirely in line with the law. And you're comparing that unironically to bombing, acid attacks, and beheading?

Well given that the very DEFINITION of "Terrorism" is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", yes I would call them that. One glass of water with dirt in it may not have as much as another glass, but that doesn't mean the glass with less dirt is suddenly clean. Furthermore, perhaps you didn't catch my meaning. I was implying that if given the political power to do so, they would probably start up death camps for people they didn't like, which IS as bad as everything else you mentioned.